Excerpt: - .....was given on 31st march of this year. the view of my self, bartley and nasim ali jj. was that the words 'civil court' in the bengal agricultural debtors act, 1935, did not include the high court. that was the' basis of the decisions that we gave. lort. williams and mitter jj. differed on that, but were of opinion that if the words' 'civil court' did include the high court then the act was ultra vires of the local legislature. in my opinion we are bound by the majority decision in that case that the words 'civil court' in the bengal agricultural debtors act, 1935, do not include the high court. the consequence is that the notices whioh have been received in the cases brought before us are no reason for making any stay in the appeals or in the revision case. we accordingly order that the.....

Judgment:

Derbyshire, C.J.

1. In Narsing Das Tansukdas v. Chogemull and Anr. : AIR1939Cal435 , which was heard before a Special Bench consisting of myself, Lort Williams, Bartley, Nasim Ali and Mitter JJ., in December and January last, judgment was given on 31st March of this year. The view of my self, Bartley and Nasim Ali JJ. was that the words 'Civil Court' in the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935, did not include the High Court. That was the' basis of the decisions that we gave. Lort. Williams and Mitter JJ. differed on that, but were of opinion that if the words' 'Civil Court' did include the High Court then the Act was ultra vires of the local Legislature. In my opinion we are bound by the majority decision in that case that the words 'Civil Court' in the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935, do not include the High Court. The consequence is that the notices whioh have been received in the cases brought before us are no reason for making any stay in the appeals or in the revision case. We accordingly order that the appeals and the revision case be heard in the ordinary course.